Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
PostgreSQL and the SQL standards processPostgreSQL and the SQL standards processPosted Sep 22, 2011 22:06 UTC (Thu) by justincormack (subscriber, #70439)In reply to: PostgreSQL and the SQL standards process by Simetrical Parent article: PostgreSQL and the SQL standards process
A lot of the rest of the w3c doesnt work like this though, and a lot of this appened because of html5. Before tht there was a mess of unused xml standards...
(Log in to post comments)
PostgreSQL and the SQL standards process Posted Sep 22, 2011 22:17 UTC (Thu) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link]
Yep, definitely. But all the W3C standards I can think of that are undergoing active development, and that are targeted at web browsers, work entirely in the open these days. There may be exceptions. But even the worst WG in the W3C publishes its standards for free on the web, and is required to listen to feedback from the general public, so it's still way better than the SQL situation described in this article.
listening to feedback Posted Sep 23, 2011 13:29 UTC (Fri) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
What does "required to listen to feedback" mean? Sure, anyone can post to the mailing list, but my experience with the CSS mailing list (www-style) is that it can take months to get a reply, and the eventual reply can still be "we've decided not to address this" without giving any reason. There's a w3c policy document that says that this "should" not happen; yet happen it does.
While it's true that the CSS 2.1 specification is published on the web, it's also true that the published specification contains contradictions and does not contain enough information to pass the test suite.
Yes, it's like an open-source project: no-one's under any obligation to address the bug reports you file.
listening to feedback Posted Sep 23, 2011 17:40 UTC (Fri) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link]
Yep, nothing is perfect by any means. It's a far cry better than what's described in the article, though. For what it's worth, some of the more recent specifications are far more detailed, and hopefully do contain enough information to pass their test suites. CSS 2.1 is ancient, although it only just made REC.
But all the CSS specs are less precise than the newer HTML/DOM specs. At some point we're going to have to rewrite CSS from scratch with the same level of precision as HTML and DOM have been rewritten. We've learned a lot over the last decade about how to write standards.
|
|||||||||||||